Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Revised Artificer Survey now available
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7615039" data-attributes="member: 6704184"><p>IMO it's a very good thing that they are reluctant to introduce entirely new resource models into the game. I think one of the primary and irreplaceable strengths of the edition is that the game doesn't function completely differently for people with all the material vs people with just the PHB. </p><p></p><p>That said, the damage track of the rogue could be exactly what an Inventor class would benefit from. Not the Artificer, because that's an explicitly magical crafter with a specific vision, but a different Inventor class, certainly. If they are somehow able to infuse magic into things while simultaneously unable to do any magic directly (imo a silly premise), why not allow a similar damage track as a psuedo-smite that is at-will because it isn't coming from without, but from their "signature weapon"? </p><p></p><p>Maybe less restricted than the rogue, but also less damage. So, you can add it to the damage of the firebolt you shoot out of your Signature Wand or whatever, but you deal half the extra damage of a rogue, or something like half the dice but d8s instead of d6s, or whatever makes the math work. </p><p></p><p>I'd also give such a class, maybe called the Imbuer, the ability to recharge magic items with charges x/day, with a level based table for what rarity of item they can recharge, and how many x it takes to recharge items of a given rarity. Using spell slots to do it would be more mechanically efficient, I'd wager, but since the goal is to not have those...</p><p></p><p>Then I'd have a few different types of Signature Creation you can have, analogous to the Warlocks Pact Boon choice in that it's aside from the subclass choice. Subclasses would include things like gaining the ability to make a weapon attack as a Bonus Action after using a magic item as an Action, 1/3 spellcasting, a mech suit, advanced bomb and/or trap crafting, etc. I've despised every "mutagen" chugging class I've ever seen in a d20 game, but might as well let those guys have their thing, too. </p><p></p><p>Just, leave the Artificer itself out of it. They're two separate concepts. </p><p></p><p>But in the end, folks that don't like this Artificer are best off looking to 3pp, for better or worse. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, I think they basically just ran the numbers on the satisfaction portion, saw overwhelmingly positive responses, and realised that any further work would just be fine tuning. And they probably got more than sufficient (in their view) responses in that time. Still, I wish it was open for longer, or that they'd waiting longer to put it out. I know a couple ppl in my group didn't get a chance to sit down and go through it properly enough to give good feedback.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 7615039, member: 6704184"] IMO it's a very good thing that they are reluctant to introduce entirely new resource models into the game. I think one of the primary and irreplaceable strengths of the edition is that the game doesn't function completely differently for people with all the material vs people with just the PHB. That said, the damage track of the rogue could be exactly what an Inventor class would benefit from. Not the Artificer, because that's an explicitly magical crafter with a specific vision, but a different Inventor class, certainly. If they are somehow able to infuse magic into things while simultaneously unable to do any magic directly (imo a silly premise), why not allow a similar damage track as a psuedo-smite that is at-will because it isn't coming from without, but from their "signature weapon"? Maybe less restricted than the rogue, but also less damage. So, you can add it to the damage of the firebolt you shoot out of your Signature Wand or whatever, but you deal half the extra damage of a rogue, or something like half the dice but d8s instead of d6s, or whatever makes the math work. I'd also give such a class, maybe called the Imbuer, the ability to recharge magic items with charges x/day, with a level based table for what rarity of item they can recharge, and how many x it takes to recharge items of a given rarity. Using spell slots to do it would be more mechanically efficient, I'd wager, but since the goal is to not have those... Then I'd have a few different types of Signature Creation you can have, analogous to the Warlocks Pact Boon choice in that it's aside from the subclass choice. Subclasses would include things like gaining the ability to make a weapon attack as a Bonus Action after using a magic item as an Action, 1/3 spellcasting, a mech suit, advanced bomb and/or trap crafting, etc. I've despised every "mutagen" chugging class I've ever seen in a d20 game, but might as well let those guys have their thing, too. Just, leave the Artificer itself out of it. They're two separate concepts. But in the end, folks that don't like this Artificer are best off looking to 3pp, for better or worse. Yeah, I think they basically just ran the numbers on the satisfaction portion, saw overwhelmingly positive responses, and realised that any further work would just be fine tuning. And they probably got more than sufficient (in their view) responses in that time. Still, I wish it was open for longer, or that they'd waiting longer to put it out. I know a couple ppl in my group didn't get a chance to sit down and go through it properly enough to give good feedback. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Revised Artificer Survey now available
Top